Dnia 2014-10-14, o godz. 02:41:58 Peter Stuge <pe...@stuge.se> napisał(a):
> Peter Stuge wrote: > > There is a severe behavioral penalty! > > Rich Freeman wrote: > > > I really do not want that to be chosen for me. > > > > Well, then all you need to do is tell eselect to disable them, etc. > > Well, but see above - this is a huge change in behavior - I really > don't think that should be done so lightly. I would be against it > even if I actually wanted completions by default. Then complain to upstream. Switching completions on/off is really poorly supported, and doesn't work properly in many cases. I've added the opt-out for the sake of it, and I still have serious doubts over the added complexity and maintaining custom patches. > > It always seemed pointless to me that there are a million bash > > completion filters installed on my system and I can't use them > > without going through eselect and turning them all on. :) > > Is USE=bash-completion set by default profiles? I suppose that that > is what should actually control whether completions are available. USE=bash-completion is not supposed to be used to control installing completion files, just extra dependencies. > I would unset it on my system to not have completions. Then don't install bash-completion, or use INSTALL_MASK. Do we have to reiterate this over and over again with every file installed? -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
